Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Anyone else thinking those 1m+ coins s/he has are a kill switch ...
I have thought of it ... more like a RESET button for Bitcoin.

Or ... an amok fork (chain) kill switch - you are right. Certainly a mighty stick (this somehow gets me thinking along funny lines again).


On another happy note, I am happy to observe that the most recent DDOS on Classic seems no stronger than the one before, at least from my brief observations in the last hour. All systems go!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon
My thinking is that there are a lot of really undeserving and negative people with huge Bitcoin balances. I think the world is probably a lot better off if those people lose their disproportionate economic power.

People who are pragmatic about cryptocurrency and not religious about the first version of it will be much more likely to see the handwriting on the wall a lot earlier.
Undeserving and negative people with huge balances seems to be a feature of mankind, not of bitcoin.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
My thinking is that there are a lot of really undeserving and negative people with huge Bitcoin balances. I think the world is probably a lot better off if those people lose their disproportionate economic power.

People who are pragmatic about cryptocurrency and not religious about the first version of it will be much more likely to see the handwriting on the wall a lot earlier.
I would agree that there are a lot of undeserving people with huge * balances in the world.
Compared to the "real" economic stakeholders, all cryptocurrencies are peanuts, including Bitcoin, and if there is way to buy them out, they can easily be bought out. This has been said before.

I'd like to first hear : why Ethereum considers PoS as better than PoW ?
Don't they feel it could lead to the same kind of entrenchment of the powers that be?

I know I am quite ignorant on this subject and should inform myself better on this.
Sadly I haven't followed Ethereum closely enough up to now, but I've found myself liking a lot of the innovative ideas coming out of it. Certainly a lot of brilliant minds working there.

But since you seem very knowledgeable about Ethereum and come here often, Matthew, I might as well ask you those fundamental questions here.

P.S. I believe that spreading wealth over competing cryptocurrencies is good for crypto in the long run as it makes for a larger number of stronger targets, and thus much harder for adversaries to take down.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluemoon

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
My thinking is that there are a lot of really undeserving and negative people with huge Bitcoin balances. I think the world is probably a lot better off if those people lose their disproportionate economic power.

People who are pragmatic about cryptocurrency and not religious about the first version of it will be much more likely to see the handwriting on the wall a lot earlier.
The world is unfair. It is something we live with.The market is unforgiving enough; I do not feel the need to wish ill of those luckier than myself, except perhaps only those who are malicious and seek to harm others.

If cryptocurrency is to revolutionise and free the world, it is better those individuals and businesses who have put so much into it are able to build on what they have already done rather than be crushed and have to start over from scratch. I prefer to see Bitcoin resolve its problems and hopefully emerge stronger than before. I am not religious, yet I pray it does.
 

Matthew Light

Active Member
Dec 25, 2015
134
121
The world is unfair. It is something we live with.The market is unforgiving enough; I do not feel the need to wish ill of those luckier than myself, except perhaps only those who are malicious and seek to harm others.

If cryptocurrency is to revolutionise and free the world, it is better those individuals and businesses who have put so much into it are able to build on what they have already done rather than be crushed and have to start over from scratch. I prefer to see Bitcoin resolve its problems and hopefully emerge stronger than before. I am not religious, yet I pray it does.
I am not wishing ill on anyone, simply noting that certain Bitcoiners with large balances have been behaving extremely negatively. The world does not owe Bitcoin Maximalists anything at all. If they are foolish enough to destroy the network effect and value of Bitcoin (as they are currently doing) and a different cryptocurrency network takes its place, the wise crypto investors will buy into the replacement network and won't miss out on anything.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
@Matthew Light: there will be winners and losers in this but no one knows how it will play out, we must play the hand we are dealt.

For example it wouldn't surprise me if it transpired that blockstream were deliberately slowing development for bitcoin to allow rich third parties to gobble up coins and amass a huge position, or if they were actually a state or banking sector funded attack on bitcoin from within!

Either way the response from us will be the same, to try and route around them by supporting unlimited or classic whilst hedging in monero/ETH in case of a rush for the exits. Never a dull day in this scene.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Assuming ETH gets massive - could they directly run Bitcoin on top of Ethereum (i.e. PoW on top of a PoS system?) and in that way sweep the rug out from a non-ethereal Bitcoin?
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@freetrader it's not ETH that's the threat that turns BTC into. PoS system.

LN actually lays the foundation to do it. So should demand for BTC grow while use of the blockchain is limited BTC will fill the role of an assett class for use like gold eg. Lightning (as fiat) and roostock (lending contracts aka credit using BTC as backing)

While the plebeians use LN the stake holders in BTC earn interest or transaction fees for backing digital fiat.

What's more insidious is unlike fiat collapse the BTC is preserved in a smart contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

SysMan

Member
Mar 4, 2016
25
40
- Classic Hard-Fork - still doesn't has the performance optimizations done in bitcoind 0.12 by core.
performance of normal bitcoind operation is one of general issue. there a lot of performance should be done.
comparing the both commands by:
- short term solution results/efficiency
- long term solution results/efficiency
- quality of code & performance
- ability to maintain and support code.
imho classic still lose in this competittion. Sure masses want "bib-blocks and asap", and we need biger blocks, but I vote for Safe and responsible way of block-size increase.
Classic delivers short term, but no long term plan, no performance improvements, no support, no ability to maintain code and less responsibility of long term results.
I would like to see both commands merged their code, instead of disturbing each other... for now Classic even make core work more harder because of improper change of blocks version flags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and YarkoL

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@SysMan: are you comparing against 0.11.2 version of Classic?

Are you aware of Classic 0.12rc1 ?

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v0.12.0clrc1

It should have *all* the performance improvements of Core 0.12.

(i know you would probably never run a RC in production - but just as an indication that a proper release is likely not far away. Plus you can test - the RC comes with full binaries and code)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@SysMan Welcome to the Hard Money Early Adopter thread! where Bitcoin is considered Money and a Public Good not to be exploited by for-profits!

who knows even where to begin? the arguments here against Core are long and lengthy so best to start with your list:

- Classic Hard-Fork - still doesn't has the performance optimizations done in bitcoind 0.12 by core. performance of normal bitcoind operation is one of general issue. there a lot of performance should be done.
Classic is testing a 0.12 branch now https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic

- short term solution results/efficiency
Classic is/has been already running on over 1400 nodes w/o problems. SW Testnet just forked if you hadn't noticed so April is looking sketchy. it should be apparent to you that Core is rushing madly to get SW out so as to lock the community into their vision for Bitcoin. otoh, just ~10 LOC needed changing plus come attack checks to get Classic running.

- long term solution results/efficiency
it's clear SW changes Bitcoin economics. how do i know? a+b/4<=1 could just as easily been a+b/2<=1 or even a+b<=1. who chose? Pieter Wuille. a single guy. not to mention that all FN's and miners are forced to transmit all this extra BW to subsidize the formation of large, complex MS's that favor LN usage. what a coincidence. i don't even think anybody thinks that 2MB blks will damage the network at this pt. even Greg, Adam, & PT have gone on record stating that. sure there are other optimizations built in for tx mall, fraud proofs (not coded), etc. but those change the FN security model significantly away from miners to an assumption that FN's aren't censored. could be valid but maybe not and in any case assumes that growth of FN's via the SPV model is appropriate (it may not be). and i have a Q for you as a miner? just how bad of a problem is tx mall anyways? not much i'd guess.

- quality of code & performance
Jeff and Gavin have been around since the beginning and Gavin is #3 i commits i believe? plus, many other talented devs aren't contributing to Classic & BU if you hadn't noticed. there's nothing magical about Wuille, Maxwell, Luke et al. they can be replaced and given their behavior over the last year as a Blockstream monolith, i'd dare say that might be preferable. imo, all those guys would come over to Classic core dev b/c it's in their economic interest to do so. esp as i believe Blockstream investors/board would demand they get as close to the new code as possible to continue to effect change and influence. and that would be ok. as far as code, the only thing i'd say that will contribute to efficiency is libsecp256k1. all the other things devved over the last year have been to facilitate LN; CSV, CLTV, RBF. given that i think LN is unnecessary, you can see how i'd think their efforts have been misplaced while the blocksize issue has been ignored/stalled.

- ability to maintain and support code.
it's good to have diversity and decentralization in core dev and given the outstanding coding developments right here in BU, XThins, XValidation, & the soon to be released XPress Relay network we will have that. coders can be replaced when their motivations go against Bitcoin's ethos.

Classic delivers short term, but no long term plan, no performance improvements, no support, no ability to maintain code and less responsibility of long term results.
that's just wrong. it does via it's Roadmap. there is plenty of motivation AND opportunity for new core devs to step up and contribute to Classic. there's plenty of motivation to do so w/o the need for stock options, bonus incentives, 6 figure salaries, and 10x return pressures from investors. we're seeing it right now thru the work of guys like @Peter Tschipper @theZerg @YarkoL @sickpig @dgenr8 @tomz @yamamushi etc. their BTC holdings and the opportunity for speaking engagements, consulting contracts, fame, and contributing to a bigger cause motivates them.

you're new to the space so i'm not surprised many of these arguments may not resonate with you. but guys like me who've been around since the beginning hold these values. Bitcoin is the People's Money and has the chance to change the world for the better. but it needs to spread to every corner of the world and be cheap, fast, and inexpensive. just like cash. that is the very definition of decentralized and secure.
 

SysMan

Member
Mar 4, 2016
25
40
@SysMan There is a long term plan for Bitcoin Classic, which is to eventually move towards an adaptive blocksize.

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
What mean's adaptive block-size ? shoot first then think about ? you starting self-adjusting mechanism -without understanding how it will works and future, without calculations what it requires.
looks like opening blockchain for spamers/malicious/abuse - like pandora box ?
Bitcoin is young economy, we should more balanced adjust, like the new car engine - it you just increase or just self-regulate, it may be risky.

p.s. Once again I'm not again block-size increase, but its should be done in more safe and balanced way. not like 1st jump, think later.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Last edited:

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
What mean's adaptive block-size ? shoot first then think about ? you starting self-adjusting mechanism -without understanding how it will works and future, without calculations what it requires.
looks like opening blockchain for spamers/malicious/abuse - like pandora box ?
Bitcoin is young economy, we should more balanced adjust, like the new car engine - it you just increase or just self-regulate, it may be risky.

p.s. Once again I'm not again block-size increase, but its should be done in more safe and balanced way. not like 1st jump, think later.
There is a school of thought that says block size is *self* limiting as a result of all participants acting in their own best economic interests. For me thats as true to the spirit of bitcoin as you can get. The idea that there is any limit at all seems counterintuitive to me.

When you look at things like that, even a mean adaptive block size is somewhat authoritarian and overly conservative ;)

I can see the benefits in being prudent though.

In the true sprit of bitcoin I would say that its best to provide both options (e.g. BU / Classic ) and let the chips fall where they may!